What Is Virtue?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

If the definition of love is my involuntary response to virtue if I am virtuous, then what is the definition of virtue?

I think we all know instinctively what actions are virtuous as compared to not, in general, but how do we know? How do we fact check? Is charity virtuous? What if charity results in enabling an existing problem rather than fixing it? Does that context make that example of charity immoral? If so then charity in general can't be virtuous. Or that example isn't charity.  

Someone asked how to love; someone else stated what love is; someone further state what virtue is. However while I can accept the premise that "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuous" I do not know for sure what is virtue. And that's the key part that ends the pondering and allows action in pursuing love and evolution.

 

[Eudaimonic]

Virtue is a quality of person who acts in a way which manifests the values that he holds.

Virtuous action is those moral actions (those that dont violate NAP) that acheive a specific value. 

Values are entirely subjective.

What's meant by "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuos" in my opinion, is: "Love is an involuntary response to the actions in others that manifest the values that I value, when I myself act to manifest the values that I value, if those actions are moral."

[mgggb]

1 hour ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

If the definition of love is my involuntary response to virtue if I am virtuous, then what is the definition of virtue?

 

I think we all know instinctively what actions are virtuous as compared to not, in general, but how do we know? How do we fact check? Is charity virtuous? What if charity results in enabling an existing problem rather than fixing it? Does that context make that example of charity immoral? If so then charity in general can't be virtuous. Or that example isn't charity.  

Someone asked how to love; someone else stated what love is; someone further state what virtue is. However while I can accept the premise that "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuous" I do not know for sure what is virtue. And that's the key part that ends the pondering and allows action in pursuing love and evolution.

 

Virtue is that which you hold as your highest value. So "love is your involuntary response to that which is your highest value in another". 

This differs from @Eudaimonicdefinition because it is amoral. This matters because what is good is somewhat arbitrary and people who are not good people still have people they love.

So basically your actions are the manifestation of your abstract values on life. 

[Eudaimonic]

1 hour ago, mgggb said:

This matters because what is good is somewhat arbitrary and people who are not good people still have people they love

Good in terms of morallity is not arbitrary,  but defined by the non-transgression of the NAP.

I'm interested to hear your arguments as to how evil people can love, either each other or virtuous people and if you can give me an empirical example.

[mgggb]

8 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

Good in terms of morallity is not arbitrary,  but defined by the non-transgression of the NAP.

The nap is necessary but not sufficient for morality. Stomping on kittens is a violation of the nap but I wouldn't say that anyone who doesn't stomp on kittens is a good person. Morality deals with positive obligations. It's arbitrary in that finding the aristitalian mean depends on the situation you are in. 

8 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

I'm interested to hear your arguments as to how evil people can love, either each other or virtuous people and if you can give me an empirical example.

Its probably what under your definition you would call infatuation. I'm just not making a separate category for it since there's not a lot of difference and none that manifest physically. So I guess the best example would be Bill and Hillary Clinton. Evil people are attracted to evil people. 

Edit: I also don't think that there is anyone, or relatively few, who think they are evil. 

[Eudaimonic]

6 hours ago, mgggb said:

The nap is necessary but not sufficient for morality. Stomping on kittens is a violation of the nap but I wouldn't say that anyone who doesn't stomp on kittens is a good person. Morality deals with positive obligations. It's arbitrary in that finding the aristitalian mean depends on the situation you are in. 

I think I understand what you're saying, some actions are "good" according to wether they acheive an arbitrary value if the person values it, but the NAP is the only universal good, which if transgressed, makes the action evil. Is that correct?

6 hours ago, mgggb said:

Its probably what under your definition you would call infatuation. I'm just not making a separate category for it since there's not a lot of difference and none that manifest physically. So I guess the best example would be Bill and Hillary Clinton. Evil people are attracted to evil people. 

Would you call infatuation love? I think there is certainly a difference, evil people are necessarily narcissistic, they value people as a means to be used for something else where as people who love value each other, ultimately,  as an end to be enjoyed. People who love are intimate versus closed and internally alone, people who love experience each other authentically rather than what their partner pretends to be. The list goes on, but it all relates to the fact that love (between two people) revolves around the mutual exchange of real values to offer and receive between each other. As well, evil, like any habit, is not restricted in the personality. It's an incredible lack of empathy and will seep all over their relationship, the initiation of force or an actions which lack empathy can never be values because it's a win-lose action. In a relationship like that, one is in it because one is scared, values control, or is seeking a place to offload anger. Their partner is merely an object, not something they value in and of itself, in fact, something they would get rid of if they weren't pathological. 

[mgggb]

1 hour ago, Eudaimonic said:

I think I understand what you're saying, some actions are "good" according to wether they acheive an arbitrary value if the person values it, but the NAP is the only universal good, which if transgressed, makes the action evil. Is that correct?

For example, giving to charity could be both a moral and immoral action. If a person needs charity through no fault of their own you are helping them get back on their feet. If a person needs charity because they refuse to take responsibility for their life you are enabling them. However, there is no amount of charity you can do to make up for being a serial killer. 

1 hour ago, Eudaimonic said:

Would you call infatuation love? I think there is certainly a difference, evil people are necessarily narcissistic, they value people as a means to be used for something else where as people who love value each other, ultimately,  as an end to be enjoyed.  People who love are intimate versus closed and internally alone, people who love experience each other authentically rather than what their partner pretends to be. The list goes on, but it all relates to the fact that love (between two people) revolves around the mutual exchange of real values to offer and receive between each other. As well, evil, like any habit, is not restricted in the personality. It's an incredible lack of empathy and will seep all over their relationship, the initiation of force or an actions which lack empathy can never be values because it's a win-lose action. In a relationship like that, one is in it because one is scared, values control, or is seeking a place to offload anger. Their partner is merely an object, not something they value in and of itself, in fact, something they would get rid of if they weren't pathological. 

So good people use each other for their own enjoyment. You can define anything as bad if you want to. At the end of the day, there's no way to know what other people experience, but what we do know is what they say they experience and how they act. If Bill and Hillary both value exploitation and both exploit each other then does it not follow that they love each other? It's not any way I could love someone but that's because I value different things. I love people who are honest because I am honest, and I love myself.  

[mgggb]

1 hour ago, Eudaimonic said:

Would you call infatuation love? I think there is certainly a difference

I think I may be using the same words to mean different things. The issue I am taking with "love is our involuntary response to virtue, if you are virtuous" is the "if you are virtuous" part. However, "virtue" connotes "positive goodness" as opposed to "what one subjectively values as good" which is how I was using it. And "love" implies "a positive attraction" where as I was using it as "attraction". So, I guess a reformulation is "attraction is our involuntary response to what we subjectively value". 

I think that works. What do you think? 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Before I say anything: I apologize for making you all wait 8 days given I was the one who made this post. I was very busy, and will likely still be busy for a while, but I have a good time now to make some replies and start a new thread about the drama of the August 7th Protest. 

On 8/5/2017 at 2:07 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Virtue is a quality of person who acts in a way which manifests the values that he holds.

Virtuous action is those moral actions (those that dont violate NAP) that acheive a specific value. 

Values are entirely subjective.

Contradiction: Morality is objective, therefore moral actions are objective, and therefore virtue is objective. 

On 8/5/2017 at 2:07 PM, Eudaimonic said:

What's meant by "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuos" in my opinion, is: "Love is an involuntary response to the actions in others that manifest the values that I value, when I myself act to manifest the values that I value, if those actions are moral."

Which makes it in the realm of objectivity again, and therefore "what is virtue remains". 

On 8/5/2017 at 2:50 PM, mgggb said:

Virtue is that which you hold as your highest value. So "love is your involuntary response to that which is your highest value in another". 

This differs from @Eudaimonicdefinition because it is amoral. This matters because what is good is somewhat arbitrary and people who are not good people still have people they love.

So basically your actions are the manifestation of your abstract values on life. 

This is possible, but that begs the question as to whether "A is virtuous" is a subjective statement or not. Arguably it can be objective insofar A is upholding his values, however it is subjective in the sense that those values A is upholding don't have to be moral.

A workable definition.

 

 

On 8/6/2017 at 9:18 AM, mgggb said:

I think I may be using the same words to mean different things. The issue I am taking with "love is our involuntary response to virtue, if you are virtuous" is the "if you are virtuous" part. However, "virtue" connotes "positive goodness" as opposed to "what one subjectively values as good" which is how I was using it. And "love" implies "a positive attraction" where as I was using it as "attraction". So, I guess a reformulation is "attraction is our involuntary response to what we subjectively value". 

I think that works. What do you think? 

I think it dodges the central question of "what is virtue" and what acts are virtuous (objectively speaking)? 

Is it even possible to determine whether an action if virtuous, or is it an after-the-fact sort of thing?

For example, is saving a life virtuous? Is that objectively moral? Is it context dependent? I know this is an autistic question, but one that bothers me because I want to speak from a position of absolution and conviction rather than doubt and compromise. 

It's easy to say what don't-dos' are, it's much harder to say what the dos' are objectively. 

Like we know keeping healthy, being smart in choosing a vocation, having self-discipline, etc. etc. are productive to our own livelihoods but they don't necessarily hold a moral context to them because bad guys can also follow these things for their own bad ends. 

To repeat myself: What is Virtuous? How do we know it's virtuous? And since virtue is that which is objectively moral, then a re-defining dodges the question because the intent is to suss out the "dos" as compared to the "don't dos" (or at least the "would strongly prefer you do", since the only "dos" I can think of are ones opposite the violation of the NAP, like peaceful parenting as compared to neglect and violence).

[mgggb]

19 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

To repeat myself: What is Virtuous? How do we know it's virtuous? And since virtue is that which is objectively moral, then a re-defining dodges the question because the intent is to suss out the "dos" as compared to the "don't dos" (or at least the "would strongly prefer you do", since the only "dos" I can think of are ones opposite the violation of the NAP, like peaceful parenting as compared to neglect and violence).

Negative virtue,  like the NAP, can be absolute and universal because it requires lack of action.

Positive virtue is subjective for two reasons involving action. 1,  You must choose what you define as a moral ideal. And 2, you must choose if a given situation is in the spirit of the ideal. 

That sounds like 10 different levels of relativism, so let me give an example. 

You define telling the truth as a moral ideal. But if nazis are going from house to house looking for Jews, telling the truth is not in the spirit of your ideal. 

So this gets into what "the spirit of your ideal" means. And I don't really have a definition in words for that. I think that based on your world view you prefer certain outcomes. Achieving an outcome can usually be done based on broad principles. However, if a principle is being used against your desired outcome then that principle is maladaptive to the situation and must be discarded. 

 

That's about as close as I can get. I'll think about this some more. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

4 hours ago, mgggb said:

Negative virtue,  like the NAP, can be absolute and universal because it requires lack of action.

Positive virtue is subjective for two reasons involving action. 1,  You must choose what you define as a moral ideal. And 2, you must choose if a given situation is in the spirit of the ideal. 

That sounds like 10 different levels of relativism, so let me give an example. 

You define telling the truth as a moral ideal. But if nazis are going from house to house looking for Jews, telling the truth is not in the spirit of your ideal. 

So this gets into what "the spirit of your ideal" means. And I don't really have a definition in words for that. I think that based on your world view you prefer certain outcomes. Achieving an outcome can usually be done based on broad principles. However, if a principle is being used against your desired outcome then that principle is maladaptive to the situation and must be discarded. 

 

That's about as close as I can get. I'll think about this some more. 

If a value is subjective, it cannot be moral right? After all, morality is preference's objective cousin. On the other hand, ideals can be moral. Maybe my ideal is to rid violations of the NAP in the world. How to do that is largely subjective but the moral goal is moral because it is objective--anyone can not abuse or otherwise violate the NAP and it is impossible for two people in a room to willingly violate and be violated by each other because it then becomes consent and no longer a violation.

I think we're getting closer to making a case for what a virtuous action might be. We have a virtuous goal, but a virtuous action is going to be harder since hypothetically I could spare the world of future NAP violations by destroying it or mind-controlling it or whatever sci fi world ending totolitarian project I could think of. 

 

[RichardY]

Anyone read Meno by Plato? or know any good works on virtue? Maybe it would be interesting to contrast with Nicomachean ethics.

If virtue is objective then it can be taught.

Maybe the more fundamental question is why be good?

Virtue is profitable. What would the opposite of virtue be? In my opinion depravity. There can not be one without the other.

True Knowledge vs True Opinion. If I know what I do is virtuous am I virtuous? Where as if my opinions are True, am I aware of what I do, though I maybe seen as virtuous.

Truth as a mode of being. "Socrates: Now then, let me try to tell you what shape is. See whether you will accept the
following account: shape, let’s say, is the one thing that invariably accompanies color.
Does this satisfy you, or do you want to go about defining the term in some other way?
For myself, I would be satisfied if you defined virtue in some such way as this." Meno

In an Absolute Tyranny, virtue is impossible.

NAP

If values are subjective and aggression(predation) a value to some people then the NAP is also subjective. There is a part of you that values aggression or you are a lamb to the slaughter, the point being, ambiguity whether you are threatened or not and whether moderated aggression may often be appropriate(Listening 45 minute into the Gulag Archipelago illustrates this.) Also if you state you value the NAP, then a person could use that as leverage to attack and gain the upper hand.

Love is the involuntary response to virtue. "A response."

What about love being just given? "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7, 6

Virtue vs power? Virtue is sustainable, power is reliant on Virtue or Depravity.

Virtue: Involves; rarity, strength, vulnerability, Manliness, imposing order on chaos. 

[Mole]

Virtue is truth seeking. From this simple axiom comes a number of wonderful conclusions.

1. Abstain from drugs or other fantasies as they weaken your ability to recognise reality.

2. Make choices that will give you even greater choices in the future, so that you can seek more truth.

3. Survive to preserve your truth-seeking ability within yourself. You must hold this as universal and not say that survival is only for myself since a part of truth-seeking is recognising that others are not objectively different, hence any rule saying only I deserve life must be a delusion since it is an arbitrary distinction, which is the opposite of truth-seeking.

4. Be productive so that you may enhance the survival of yourself and others. It is also an application of your rationality.

5. Be creative for inherent in art is some truth about reality.

6. Admire others who also seek truth, and support them so they make seek truth even more.

7. Apply yourself according to your abilities since that is where you will have the greatest knowledge of truth. For example, a brick layer is using his potential and nobody understands the metaphysics of bricks quite like he does.

8. Be moral for if you value truth-seeking, you must value it in others as they are not objectively different.

9. Raise children for they will learn the truth from you and build upon it to even greater truths.

10. Seek leisure as long as leisure is a celebration and reflection of all you have achieved.

11. Socialise so that others may teach you, and you shall teach them.

12. Be compassionate as compassion is the recognition of the reality of the internal world within ourselves and others that we often ignore.

13. Play games, for games are a set of rules that are derived from reality, hence games simulate reality and so are a form of truth-seeking.

14. Have courage as courage is simply expressing one's beliefs about reality regardless of what others wish you would express.

We can prove this axiom from first principles. Every decision we make requires that we recognise reality to some degree. Even a drug addict recognises the reality of where he gets his drugs. Therefore no decisions should be made that weakens this capability. In other words, free will should not commit suicide. As soon as you start taking drugs or murdering people or believing lies, your capability to DECIDE to do those things weakens. Without free will we don't exist, for free will is what distinguishes us from our environment. Everything must value itself. An apple ought to be an apple, however, unlike us, it does not have a choice. We are moral agents, so we ought to be moral agents. We ought to not sabotage ourselves. If we did not have the ability to recognise truth, we would literally be unconscious since there would be no concept formation. Truth is the highest value.

Universally Preferable Behaviour is essentially a synonym of truth-seeking. All mankind (universally) necessarily prefers (preferable) truth from falsehood (truth-seeking behaviour) at a given moment. UPB is objectively required at any given moment. That does not mean we always prefer it in the future. For example, someone prefers the reality of their beer sip when that occurs but is sabotaging themselves to be able to recognise the reality of the future. Perhaps they get knocked out or become delusional. In fact, all vices are not people deciding to do harm to themselves at any moment, but harm to themselves in the future. The action always comes after the decision. Suicide is generally not virtuous, but even the decision to kill oneself requires a preference for life over death even if that life is being sabotaged because all decisions require life.

Ethics is derived from epistemology is derived from metaphysics.

Truth-seeking is derived from truth is derived from reality. That's the simplest philosophical system that could exist.

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

12 hours ago, Mole said:

Virtue is truth seeking. From this simple axiom comes a number of wonderful conclusions.

Now this I think it close to what is truly virtue. After all, pretty much everyone who claims X is virtuous is saying X is true (maybe. I'll make some examples and try to find a case where that isn't true or needs to be stretched). 

Actually as I typed I remembered you made some...what's the word, "tortologies?", basically conclusions based on premises boiled into a single sentence. 

12 hours ago, Mole said:

1. Abstain from drugs or other fantasies as they weaken your ability to recognise reality.

2. Make choices that will give you even greater choices in the future, so that you can seek more truth.

 

12 hours ago, Mole said:

3. Survive to preserve your truth-seeking ability within yourself. You must hold this as universal and not say that survival is only for myself since a part of truth-seeking is recognising that others are not objectively different, hence any rule saying only I deserve life must be a delusion since it is an arbitrary distinction, which is the opposite of truth-seeking.

This one's contradicting reality. People are objectively different. Therefore based on a preferred metric of value (like values), people's lives vary in value. Hypothetically though "only I am valuable" is impossible because chances are I've very much skewed my ruler in favor of myself based on some underlying problems within myself. If I base people's worth based on adherence to and pursuit of truth, then guys like Stefan would be at the high end while sophists and traitors would be on the low end. 

Theoretically it's possible for someone "at the highest end" to say only his life is valuable, but...technically he'd be wrong because literally everyone has a value on the metric of "adherence and pursuit of truth" scale even if that value is relatively less than oneself. Being lesser isn't necessarily bad. I have an IQ of 144, therefore relative to me most people are lesser in terms of horse power. However a guy with 130 could easily school me on something I'm ignorant of or through having a greater genetic focus on, say spatial reasoning, over my strength in verbal acuity, which wouldn't be very useful in situations where skill is required over speech.

 

12 hours ago, Mole said:

4. Be productive so that you may enhance the survival of yourself and others. It is also an application of your rationality.

5. Be creative for inherent in art is some truth about reality.

6. Admire others who also seek truth, and support them so they make seek truth even more.

7. Apply yourself according to your abilities since that is where you will have the greatest knowledge of truth. For example, a brick layer is using his potential and nobody understands the metaphysics of bricks quite like he does.

8. Be moral for if you value truth-seeking, you must value it in others as they are not objectively different.

9. Raise children for they will learn the truth from you and build upon it to even greater truths.

10. Seek leisure as long as leisure is a celebration and reflection of all you have achieved.

11. Socialise so that others may teach you, and you shall teach them.

12. Be compassionate as compassion is the recognition of the reality of the internal world within ourselves and others that we often ignore.

13. Play games, for games are a set of rules that are derived from reality, hence games simulate reality and so are a form of truth-seeking.

14. Have courage as courage is simply expressing one's beliefs about reality regardless of what others wish you would express.

We can prove this axiom from first principles. Every decision we make requires that we recognise reality to some degree. Even a drug addict recognises the reality of where he gets his drugs. Therefore no decisions should be made that weakens this capability. In other words, free will should not commit suicide. As soon as you start taking drugs or murdering people or believing lies, your capability to DECIDE to do those things weakens. Without free will we don't exist, for free will is what distinguishes us from our environment. Everything must value itself. An apple ought to be an apple, however, unlike us, it does not have a choice. We are moral agents, so we ought to be moral agents. We ought to not sabotage ourselves. If we did not have the ability to recognise truth, we would literally be unconscious since there would be no concept formation. Truth is the highest value.

Very much agreed, and sounds like something the great Stefpai would say. You know your stuff. 

12 hours ago, Mole said:

Universally Preferable Behaviour is essentially a synonym of truth-seeking. All mankind (universally) necessarily prefers (preferable) truth from falsehood (truth-seeking behaviour) at a given moment. UPB is objectively required at any given moment. That does not mean we always prefer it in the future. For example, someone prefers the reality of their beer sip when that occurs but is sabotaging themselves to be able to recognise the reality of the future. Perhaps they get knocked out or become delusional. In fact, all vices are not people deciding to do harm to themselves at any moment, but harm to themselves in the future. The action always comes after the decision. Suicide is generally not virtuous, but even the decision to kill oneself requires a preference for life over death even if that life is being sabotaged because all decisions require life.

Ethics is derived from epistemology is derived from metaphysics.

Truth-seeking is derived from truth is derived from reality. That's the simplest philosophical system that could exist.

 

Therefore: Virtue=Truth-seeking. Someone who isn't virtuous (but not necessarily evil, which requires direct violations of the rules rather than a dulling of the ability to follow them) is basically anyone from a deadbeat to a con artist. Virtue requires adherence to moral values and therefore evil people cannot be virtuous, for truly moral values can be objectively proven as "good"--or preferable. I think. I'm still not totally sure since I haven't read UPB much and what I know is based on his debates with others' on UPB and the arguments he's made/quoted from the book since writing it.